The UNGA comments made by India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar in response to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s mention of Kashmir are highly significant from a diplomatic standpoint. Invoking support for Cyprus, New Delhi demonstrated India’s consistent stance on upholding sovereignty and internationally recognized frameworks while also signaling a measured response to Ankara’s bluster.
Echoing Pakistan’s long-standing stance on the conflict, Turkish President Erdogan brought up the Kashmir issue at the UN General Assembly once more. Even though the Shimla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration consider the problem to be solely a bilateral one between New Delhi and Islamabad, Ankara has frequently utilized global forums to attack India’s policies in Jammu and Kashmir. In India, this action was perceived as unfriendly, intrusive, and unnecessary.
India’s support for a “comprehensive and lasting settlement of the Cyprus Question” in line with UN frameworks and UNSC resolutions was reiterated by EAM Jaishankar in response. A delicate fault line in Euro-Mediterranean geopolitics is the Cyprus issue, which has persisted since 1974 following Turkey’s military intervention on the island. India brought Ankara’s double standards—critiquing India on Kashmir while occupying northern Cyprus in violation of UN resolutions—to light by specifically bringing up Cyprus.
In addition to being a reply, New Delhi’s statement was a well-considered diplomatic move. By drawing attention to Turkey’s own unresolved territorial conflict, it subtly questioned Ankara’s moral right to instruct other nations on self-determination and sovereignty. This campaign was in line with India’s overarching plan to expose hypocrisy in attempts by states to internationalize Kashmir.
Additionally, the European Union responded favorably to India’s mention of Cyprus, especially Greece and Cyprus, both of which have vehemently condemned Turkey’s assertive stance in the Eastern Mediterranean.
India strengthened its position with European allies who increasingly view Turkey as destabilizing by reaffirming support for Cyprus’ territorial integrity and positioning itself as a player with moral principles in line with international law.
This conversation highlights the growing competition between Turkey and India in international fora. While New Delhi has developed deeper connections with Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, and Israel—all of which have tense relations with Turkey—Ankara has consistently sided with Pakistan on regional matters, ranging from Kashmir to FATF discussions.
Thus, India’s allusion to Cyprus not only neutralized Erdogan’s provocation in Kashmir but also strategically positioned New Delhi to oppose Turkey’s ambition by aligning with a Mediterranean bloc.
India showed diplomatic flexibility by tying its support for Cyprus to its reply to Erdogan’s comments about Kashmir. The action demonstrated power without using divisive language, reaffirmed India’s unwavering adherence to UN principles, and skillfully called attention to Turkey’s inconsistencies.
By doing this, New Delhi used the attack by Ankara as a chance to deepen ties with Europe, reveal Turkish duplicity, and restate its core beliefs in territorial integrity and sovereignty.
